Hey guys, how's it going? Today the issue I'm having is a bit more straightforward of a problem, albeit still a very large one. The game I'm working on is like Dungeons and Dragons bingo I'm calling it, and suffice to say there's a f!@# load of variables that come along with it. I mean really, this would be way better suited as a video game but no, I demand a challenge! An example of one of the formulas I'm using is "11+2y₁+2d₁*y₂*d₂" which is to just generate a single number. Which, honestly isn't all that bad except I'm wanting players to generate these sort of numbers on a frequent basis. So I'm just wondering if anyone has any ideas that might help me streamlining the process. Any input would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

I need to come up with some ideas for managing unit upgrades.
The base game is already planned:

• enemies are walking towards your town and you need to defend it
• each loop of time you get resources based on the buildings you placed
• with these resources you decide if you want to spend them on
  • units (better defense)
  • build more buildings (generate more resources)

Now I ask myself how to proceed with the already placed units and the resources. So ideas I've come up with or saw in similar games are:

• buildings generate the possibility for upgrading units
  • like "upgrade coins" to use on units
• buildings generate the upgrade itself
  • each building represents a specific upgrade it produces
• buildings produce further resources you can combine for specific upgrades
  • higher complexity but more possibilities combining resources into upgrades

Looking for ideas in which direction this would be most fun. What do you think of this?

I personally really love games where you can use individual builds (dot, poison, fire, frost, aoe, healing, ...) so I would like to advance more into this "unique individual build playstyle".

Hi everyone,

I’m currently developing a prototype for a farm game where the goal is to create the "ultimate" farm world and survive as many days as possible. The game features a real-time mechanic where each day passes in real-time (10 seconds = 1 day), so players must think quickly when managing their crops, animals, and resources. Taxes are also part of the gameplay, and if the player can't pay them, the game ends.

Current Features:

• Quests: Players can complete quests for rewards and progress.
• Crops: 3 crops (apple, tomato, and wheat) are available to plant and harvest.
• Stone and Tree Gathering: Collect resources like stone and wood.
• Automated Farmer: An NPC can be placed to automate crop planting and harvesting.

What’s Next? I’m trying to figure out the best way to handle progression. Should the player unlock new crops, animals, or buildings based on time or completing goals (e.g., after planting 100 tomatoes)? Or should I keep the player’s progression open from the start?

Should I Add Animals? I’m also considering adding animals to the game. Would they add a fun layer to the gameplay, or should I focus on improving the core farm mechanics (crops, resources, buildings)?

Additionally, I’m thinking about turning this into a roguelike where each run gives you random items and unlockables. Is this a good fit for this type of game?

Feedback needed! What do you think of these ideas? Anything you’d like to see added or removed? Let me know!

Per the title, I've spent a few months developing a hobby project. I’m specifically looking for feedback on the game’s design—things like narrative flow, gameplay mechanics, combat, and overall user experience. I want to make sure it’s engaging and intuitive, but as the developer I feel a little to close to it to be objective.

This is my first time sharing a project like this, so I’d also love advice on where else I could go to connect with people who enjoy giving feedback on indie games or text RPGs. If you’re interested in taking a look or know of a community that might be more of a fit for this, I’d be incredibly grateful.

Here's a link to the itch.io

Can anyone help me find examples of games with really deep weapon maintenance? The only two that come to mind are Tarkov and the GAMMA mod for STALKER Anomaly.

What I’m looking for are games where:

A) the player must actually disassemble a weapon to take care of it, using the proper tools (or a close approximation), and a lack of maintenance can lead to operation issues like jams

B) weapons have a high degree of customization and visual feedback. For example, being able to run an AK-74 without the dust cover, showing the bolt and recoil spring in operation, or having the weapon be coated in mud if the player has been crawling prone for a long time

I hope this fits with the subreddit, I feel like it does.

Let me start by clarifying that I’m not talking about quality here. Some of the examples I’ll probably throw out will be of poor quality, but I am talking about the style or method of execution not how well it was done. That is a separate issue. OK, let’s get into the meat of things.

Something I have noticed over the past few years is what seems to be criticism of games regarding their mechanics and gameplay loop and often times I see some of these things being criticized, in my opinion, unjustly. For example, let’s take a game like Starfield. Don’t get me wrong. I think the game definitely needed improvement, but for the most part, I enjoyed it. To me, however, it seemed like the complaints regarding things like seamless takeoff and landing transitions, all of the computer generated planets, and even the POI’s seemed almost baseless to me. People were expecting a re-skin of Skyrim or fallout four and were surprised when it was a different game. It didn’t seem fair to complain about the lack of variation in POI’s considering nobody said it was gonna have the same map layout as their previous games. It’s a brand new series with new mechanics and a totally different setting, why should the game get shit on for not having Skyrim like dungeons, who said they were gonna have dungeons like that?

Another example from Bethesda (RIP their track record lately) being fallout 76. The complaints about the lack of NPC‘s seemed weird to me considering both the setting and the genre of game (MMO). Obviously things didn’t go right for them, and I’m sure that somewhat impacted their vision of how the world would feel, but I don’t feel like that justifies some of those complaints.

So I suppose the question becomes are gamers expecting too much from games unfairly? At what point does criticism go from valid to irrelevant? Are players of different genres starting to reach out to games outside of their sphere of influence and unfairly criticizing ones they don’t feel live up to their genres standards? Is it fair to have hard-core COD fans Tearing into the realism of Helldivers 2 gunplay? And at what point should we as developers start to listen/ignore these complaints and at what point should you start to change your game accordingly?

Looking at helldivers 2 there has long been somewhat of a rift in that community regarding people who see it as a horde shooter and those who see it as a tactical shooter. Well, they can be similar genres, and they can overlap. There is definitely points at which they can be incompatible. And it doesn’t make sense to listen to a horde shooter player, saying that the enemies are too hard to kill in a tactical game. And on the flipside it doesn’t make sense to listen to a tactical player saying why is the best option to just mow everything down in a horde shooter.

I’m not entirely sure what the point of this post is besides to just open up that discussion but that is something I have pondered for a few years now and I’m curious to see what everybody else thinks. Just remember those examples are not regarding the quality of the game. Don’t come at me, saying all the criticism of fallout 76 is valid because they had bugs on launch. That’s not the point of this post and that’s wrong.

The idea is for players to have a standard spell, like Fireball, but they can choose how much cost they want to spend on it. The cost could be mana, cast time, or health. The more it costs, the stronger it becomes. Stronger could mean increased damage, aoe, projectile speed, accuracy.

If you know any game like this, thank you for sharing.

I'm spitballing a ruleset in the vein of Slay the Spire, with spaceships.

Two things I want to capture are the idea of killing the enemy crew rather than blowing up the hull, and using diplomacy to get them to just quit fighting you.

You start with your standard block and attack cards and add more stuff in as you go, so you'll always have your pew pew lasers for dealing hull damage.

If I have the Hull Points and Crew Points as two separate health bars, there's very little incentive to ever mix and match. Damaging one bar doesnt reduce the other, so you basically always want to just focus on one. This makes picking up any of the crew damage cards undesirable, because lasers are always there, and you're effectively always specced into them right off the bat.

For diplomacy I was considering a 1-10 "enemy hostility" scale, where you can play diplo cards to drop it down, and if you can get it to 0 you get a little chat minigame where you can try to talk them down. This is also basically just another health bar.

I've kicked around things like the Alpha>Beta>Omega set from STS, where you just play X Diplomacy cards and then you auto-win, that doesnt really solve the binary problem, it just obfuscates it.

Running riders on some of the crew/diplo cards so that you've got status effects and such that they inflict that could make them more appealing to a generalist build is the best I've got thus far.

Presumably some enemies will be more susceptible to one strategy vs another - proud warrior race guy ships have much stronger crew, big brain guys have weak crew, idiot team is easy to outmaneuver diplomatically, etc. I dont know that that feels sufficient to incentivize the split.

Hi everybody, first post on here and I want to ask if this is the place to ask for feedback/criticism on the scope and mechanics of this concept I have for a deeper Prop Hunt game experience?

It’s just something I really want to discuss with folks, I’m just not sure if this is the subreddit to go about that or if there’s any other more appropriate place to do so. Thanks ahead of time for any help!

In this context, I'm talking about a top-down, dungeon crawler, like Diablo or Hades. Now, in 3D games, this question is easier to answer. Make the enemy taller, make them more intelligent(like elites in Halo, they quickly swap between offensive and defensive actions), erratic/aggressive movement(brutes in Halo), give the enemy a terrain advantage. However, these ideas don't really translate well, or can't be translated well into a top-down game. Enemies can be wider, but not taller, so they're not exactly scary. Using more aggressive pathfinding algorithms can increase difficulty, but doesn't usually invoke fear or surprise into the player. I've thought of some potential mechanics: resource denial(less health/ammo/stamina, invokes panic, but may just frustrate players?), unpredictable attacks(increases anxiety, difficult to fight them), audio and dialogue(narrative methods, give the enemy aura and reputation), small fighting area(forces player to engage in close combat, more chances of being hit), subversion of expectations(make player think enemy is dead, but there's actually a 2nd phase; however, this obviously only surprises and intimidates the player once).

What do you think?

I've ruminated on this for my own game but it seems for most games people hate the idea of the boss having any sort of even ground with the player. I've never really liked sometimes how tipped the scales feel towards my character in many games. What I mean is the player is allowed to heal, have environmental protection(think pillars), and many of the advantages you could say bosses have over us don't necessarily feel true to me as someone whose played games for a long time.

THE POINTS BELOW ARE TO ILLUSTRATE HOW BOSSES ARE MADE TO FEEL STRONGER, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE ACTUALLY THAT STRONG

• Bosses have special moves - well so does the player a lot of the time, and we can swap them in out for a bigger variety + synergy
• Bosses have a bigger health pool - yes bosses usually don't get one-to-five shot like a player would but we have so many heals with many action RPGs giving us lifesteal or regenerating flasks or 10+ estus in a single fight.
• Multiplayer or minions - this is self explanatory most bosses are just themselves meanwhile we can bring in friends or NPCs or stations that draw their attention away from us.

Now I'm not saying I want to correct all of the above by giving bosses healing, making them have truly special skills, or giving them minions in the arena because sometimes it can be genuinely infuriating(Turn based games with bosses these aspects can feel very hard) but I've kinda nailed down why I don't like some boss design and it's that the bosses have no sense of self-preservation. So I've been wondering can you make a boss that both wants to kill you AND want to stay alive? What is the bare minimum amount of "cheatiness" I could give a boss without making it feel terrible?

And I want to make it clear it's not just a matter of AI or mechanics I find it to be a conundrum of a mix of both. For an AI example when a boss just walks towards me as I pepper it with 5-10 arrows/bullets BEFORE it finally dodges I personally don't like that. When I am constantly chugging potions or eating cheese wheels in a fight but a boss has stagnant health or just as crazy(to me personally) they will just take tick type damage(when antidotes exist in this fairy tale world) I feel it strange as well; I can solve poison with a simple $5 potion why can't the boss at least try to prevent it? For the DOT example I don't expect them to be limitless but say they're taking damage, why can't they run behind an environmental object and drink an antidote which in that time gives the player a chance to try and chase them down for regular damage?

I am a complete amateur, I have no experience whatsoever, and I have a budget of zero.

Anyone have strong opinions on how the shotgun shrapnel should paint? Should it always be the same or should every shot be a random spread?

Hey everybody, I'm working on a teenage horror board game for class. Specifically, this game is about the horror of being in a friend group where one member has harmed another, and the few who do care fight to change the friend group while keeping everyone together.

My goal with it is to show how hard it is to get people in a friend group to care enough to act when most people want to ignore conflict.

The game revolves around players gaining Bonds with non-player Friends (and defaming or kicking out the other player(s)) while keeping the stress of the Friends low so that no one leaves the group (which leads to everyone losing).

Originally the only roles were going to be the 'Perpetrator' and the 'Victim / Survivor' roles (names pending). I figure this game could be more interesting with more than 2 or 4 players but I'm having trouble with more roles.

I have two different win condition ideas:

1. You win by ending the game with the most total Bond, and you can try to kick your enemy out of the group as well.
2. The Survivor wins by kicking out the Perpetrator, and the Perpetrator wins by not being kicked out. The game would end after X turns.

I had thought to include an ally type role, which would either require a Perp vs Survivor + Ally scenario in which the Perp is more powerful in some way, or both sides having an ally. I think the asymmetry could be interesting here, with a hidden Toxic Friend-type role (someone who wants the Friend Group to break apart), but I'm having trouble putting it all together, since the Perp and Survivor roles would be known to everyone else.

Currently the design has 3 roles, the Perp, the Survivor, and the Ally of the Survivor which has a chance of secretly being a Toxic Friend.

Any advice on making good roles and balance between these is very appreciated, thank you!

Are there any games with this sort of philosophy? Where by making both sides consistently overpowered, the game is balanced, and both sides must make heavy use of their unique abilities to succeed?

So I'm asking this question because of DBD, which was heavily unbalanced and still is. It has one killer who must kill four survivors before they escape, and they all have perks. At one point, some perks were unbelievably powerful to the point of having no counterplay, but they were on both sides, so in an unstable way, the game was balanced. I kinda wonder, though, what if they were balanced? It might put pressure on one side to make use of their perks and abilities to not be left in the dust. And it may create a lot of stress knowing the other side is incredibly powerful, too. Are there any games that have kinda done this?

Im really struggling. I know where the story is headed but I dont know how to get there. Its just so overwhelming and I cant handle even brainstorming, my head just gets clouded. I don't want to follow a guide like the Hero's Journey or something else because I don't feel like restricting the story to a classic formula will benefit it. How do you figure out what to do next, and how do you get the confidence to keep it?

I've played a bit of metroidvanias (hk, steamworld 1&2, ori). One thing i've noticed is this:

You enter a new room, and can't get out without getting the new ability, be it a double jump or a wall climb.

What are other classic metroidvania tropes?

I love it. Add it in fighting games. That'll make people rage quit. :)

It might be late, but I think Charlie Brown could've come out with a Mario Kart racing game. I know there are a bunch of similar games, but with the right maps and voicelines, it could be something special. My idea so far is to have the football be the shell from Mario, like how Charlie Brown doesn't kick the football. For kart items, I was thinking Snoopy's doghouse as a kart, referencing the Red Baron scene in the Peanuts movie. Also, there could be a kite glider for when you go off ramps, referencing when Charlie Brown flies a kite. It's a small idea, probably dumb, but I'd like to know your thoughts.

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!

I’ve gotten a lot of questions on how to make game narratives more interactive lately in my community, so I’ve invited my colleague Brandon Dolinski to share his insight in our latest environmental storytelling guide.

(Brandon was the lead world designer on Minecraft Legends and level designer for both Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy and Dragon Age: Inquisition, so environmental storytelling is his bread and butter.)

Here’s the TL;DR:

• Environments can reflect the game world’s history and cultural nuances, allowing players to piece together the lore by interacting with their surroundings.
  • Example: Every Fallout game is full of patched-up old tech, recycled components and crumbling buildings, revealing details about the world without any direct storytelling.
• Great environmental storytelling means hiding plot fragments for players to discover, blending story with gameplay to make you feel like a narrative detective.
  • Example: The hidden rooms telling you what’s really going on in Portal.
• Designers can use elements like lighting, contrasting color schemes, sound cues, and narrative suggestions to paint a picture using the environment itself.
  • Example: Silent Hill 2’s fog and washed-out lighting help give it that oppressive mood and mirror James’s psychological state. (Try playing it with the fog modded out. It’s like night and day.)
• 5 key types of environmental storytelling:
  • Embedded: Hidden stories in ruins, objects, and scenes
  • Emergent: Stories created by players mixing with game systems
  • Spatial: Architecture and spaces that tell tales through design
  • Interactive: Stories revealed through touching and examining objects
  • Atmospheric: Lighting, sound, and mood that set the scene
• “Designer hugs” are micro-story scenes that enrich the narrative outside the main plot, layering on emotional depth and making the environment more immersive.
  • Example: In Dragon Age, you can find a small camp where a large corpse covers a smaller one that’s holding a blood-soaked teddy bear.
• Great case studies in exceptional environmental storytelling:
  • The Last of Us: Abandoned things (family photos, suitcases) tell stories of loss and survival
  • Dark Souls: Architectural decay and level design reveal a kingdom's collapse
  • Gone Home: Notes, objects and room layouts tell an intimate family story
  • BioShock: Rapture’s lighting, water damage and graffiti show a failed utopia
  • The Witcher 3: Small environmental details (burnt houses, graves) hint at past conflicts and personal stories

Here’s his full environmental storytelling guide: https://gamedesignskills.com/game-design/environmental-storytelling

What’s the best example of this you’ve seen in a game? There are so many we could talk about…

Hey everyone!

I’m working on a game that blends survival and combat mechanics, sort of like 7 Days to Die for the survival and base-building aspects, and more like Skyrim for the combat.

I’m currently designing the hotbar system (10 slots at bottom of the screen), which players will use to equip items (e.g., consumables, weapons, and base-building tools) and spells (e.g., offensive or defensive magic). I’ve come up with two potential designs for the hotbar but can’t decide which one would provide the best experience. I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Option 1: Two Separate Hotbars

• Players have one hotbar for items and another hotbar for spells.
• Players can switch between the two hotbars with a keybind. Switching would have a cooldown during combat to add a layer of strategy.
• Each hotbar is tailored for its specific purpose:
  • The item hotbar handles stackable items, consumables, and equipment.
  • The spell hotbar manages cooldowns and mana costs.

Pros:

• Clear separation between items and spells, making each easier to manage.
• Adds strategic depth (e.g., planning your hotbars and timing your switches).

Cons:

• Adds complexity—players need to switch between hotbars, which could feel clunky during fast-paced gameplay.
• Switching mid-combat might frustrate players if they can’t quickly return to an item (e.g., switching from a sword to a spell and back).

Option 2: Single Unified Hotbar

• A single hotbar that combines both items and spells.
• Players can freely assign spells or items to any slot, up to the total number of slots (e.g., 10 slots).
• Spells and items are visually differentiated (e.g., different slot colors or icons).
• Cooldowns and stack counts are handled seamlessly within the same system.

Pros:

• Simpler and more intuitive—everything is in one place.
• Faster during combat—no switching required.
• Easier to balance for usability.

Cons:

• Limited space may feel restrictive for players who want a lot of both items and spells.
• Could become visually cluttered or overwhelming with mixed functionality.
• Could be a pain when having to switch builds quickly. (i.e. having full base building items in hotbat, then needing to switch to combat spells)

What Do You Think?

I’m kind of stuck between the two but I am leaning toward a unified hotbar for simplicity, but I’m worried it might limit player creativity due to space constraints, forcing players to constantly swap out items.

On the other hand, the two-hotbar system could add depth and flexibility but might feel awkward during intense combat when switching between hotbars.

Which option do you think works better, and why? Or do you have any other ideas I should consider?

Thanks in advance for your input! 😊

Hi, i'm relatively new to game dev. I've been trying to prototype some game idea recently. I simply placed some balls on the screen and tried to set some rule to make it fun. But at this point, i felt like there are unlimited rules to play around with...I kept adjusting the rule, parameter etc. Idk, i'm just stuck, can't find the fun, the gameplay didn't excite me or anything. So i am curious how you guys do it when prototyping? Do i do it wrong at the very beginning?

Hey fellow game designers!

Top-down games have a unique set of design challenges and opportunities, from player visibility to strategic combat mechanics. That’s why I created r/TopDownStation, a hub for all things top-down.

• Share your design ideas and prototypes.
• Discuss how to tackle unique challenges in top-down design.
• Celebrate the artistry behind these games, from retro classics to modern hits like Hades.

If you love talking shop about what makes top-down games tick, come join us at r/TopDownStation!

Check it out here!

Im making a moba fps game (prob will get no buzz cause deadlock came out)and I ran into a balance problem with certain weapons when it comes to DMG output specifically talking about three types of weapons shotguns bows machine guns as in minigun

Inbthis game you purchase items to give you stats and effects and I ran into a design problem where I simply i dont know if items should give flat amounts like:3,8,6 or percentage like:10% or 30% cause obviously their sorta counter active like id like to keep it all numbers even but some just just dont work

Like a shotgun shoot pellets and it does dmg per pellet so increasing the DMG of a single pellet by like 5 or 8 is too damn much the same for a machine gun like weapon,but on the other side they are insignificant on a bow or sniper rifle like weapon So i came to ask wich option is better?

(Ps sorry for my typing english is my second language and my phone changes up words)

I am working on a tactics miniatures game where players use small squads to battle each other and sometimes compete over objectives. Each unit has one passive abilities determined by Species and two "active" abilities determined by class. These "active" abilities have cooldowns before they can be used. So how do i determine how long these cooldowns should be? Would it be better to just give all units something like "Ability A has a cooldown of 3 turns and ability 5 has a cooldown of 5 turns" or give each ability their own cooldown? If i give each ability their own cooldown is there some kind of metric that i can use or create to determine the cooldown for each ability?

I'm working on a combat system where players can choose between melee and ranged weapons, but I'm undecided with implementing a lock-on mechanic. My main concern is that if I apply the usual lock-on mechanic from souls-like to ranged weapons, it leads to auto-aim, which I don't want. I haven’t tested how a lock-on auto aim mechanic would work with ranged builds in my game, but I’m still trying to figure out a better approach.

One idea I considered was restricting the lock-on mechanic to melee weapons only, and completely removing it for ranged weapons. However, this can feel inconsistent. It would feel strange for players to be able to lock on to enemies with melee weapons, but then switch to a ranged weapon and have a completely different aiming system. Any suggestions?

For more context on the game itself, it is set in a time-convoluted world where multiple eras and themes collide, meaning equipment range from medieval fantasy to sci-fi. Players can level up three skill trees: Melee, Ranged, and Utility, each having a unique playstyle. Players can choose to master one skill tree or mix 2 or all 3, but they won’t receive the major upgrades they would get from mastering one skill tree.

Thanks in advance everyone!! have a beautiful day.

Hey all... I'm a single dad with a 20yo son who is high functioning (lv 1) autistic. He's been moved around in a company which accommodates kids like him and has been there a couple years. Though he's comfortable there, I know he's capable of much more, as he's nearly savant-like when involved with gaming and what surrounds it.

I asked him what his dream job would be, and he said to test/QA, design, or code games. I'm sure this is an extremely popular career for many people of his generation to wish for, but I'm trying to help him follow that path in whatever way I possibly can.

Do you have recommendations for classes, schools, training, or absolutely anything that would be able to keep his attention and be even remotely accredited when obtaining an entry level remote position in the gaming industry?

FYA, the "remote" preference is due to us living in a very rural area, and he's unable to drive or live on his own away from home (He's level 1 autistic, but has almost leveled up to 2 😉).

Thanks so much in advance!

I’ve been working on a solitaire roguelike card game called Bastard, where you face off against a dungeon of blackjack battles to rescue the Joker card at the top of the tower tableau. It’s a quick, tactical game using just a standard deck of cards, some tokens for tracking vitality points (HP), and a bit of luck.

I included the game document for you all to see. I’d love to get your feedback on the first draft of the rules. If you’re into card games, dungeon crawlers, or just looking to kill 10 minutes, give it a go and let me know what you think! Suggestions for balancing, clarity, or additional mechanics are especially welcome.

Bastard Game Doc

I am at the end of my Games Engineering studies, which is software engineering with a game focus. Game design is not seriously part of the studies, but I am concorning myself with game design in my free time.

I am currently looking into theory behind game design and stumbled across a book called "Advanced Game Desgin - A Systems Approach" and I feel like the first 100 pages are just no-brainers on and on.

Now, all these 100 pages make it seem to me, as if system design was the same as software design, except that everything is less computer-scientistish explained. In software design you close to always need to design a system, so you always think about how the different classes and objects behave on their own and how they interact. So as of my current understanding it seems that if you are doing software design, you already know the basics for the broader topic of system design (unequal game design).

Am I missing something here?

Imagine a PvE FPS game with modern graphics, with some war story as the backdrop. But here is the catch. All of the NPCs you kill have names. When you kill them, you get access to read their bio, so read about the person you just killed. Maybe they were an honor student that enlisted to support their country. Maybe they are a drug addict who tried to get clean, maybe they are a parent to 2 kids with a 3rd on the way.

I imagine there would be a bit of a scope issue for the writing of these if LLM AI wasn't used, but the use of LLM would also cheapen the effect.

I wonder how this hypothetical game would feel to players.